The
deadline for state legislative districts is the end of the first
legislative session after the return of the census. There is no
specific deadline for congressional districts, but the practical
deadline for both plans is far enough before the first Monday in
January -- which is the beginning of the candidate-qualifying period
for primaries – that the Department of Justice has time to preclear the
plans.

Who’s in Charge of Redistricting?

The legislature. There is no gubernatorial veto power over redistricting plans.

North
Carolina’s tortuous decade of litigation and repeated court
requirements to draw new congressional maps has created a reform
climate in the state. Legislators of both parties have proposed bills
on redistricting commissions, while Congressman Mel Watt –
representative of the controversial 12th district – in
1999 introduced a bill that would have allowed multi-seat congressional
districts (HR 1173, the States’ Choice of Voting Systems Act).

By
losing control of the house in 2000, the Republicans lost a direct
voice in redistricting. Because Democrats spread their voters too
thinly in 1991-92, contributing to several close losses and near losses
in 1994, the recent history of bi-partisan efforts to protect most
incumbents may well continue in 2001. With one new district, minority
voting rights advocates may seek three minority-opportunity
districts rather than the current two.

The First Version:
The first formulation of the 12th CD was in response to the Department
of Justice's rejection of North Carolina's original congressional plan
containing only one majority-black district. The 12th district was the
result of the Democratic-controlled legislature's attempt to create a
second majority-black district while maintaining a partisan advantage.
The plan with the new 12th, majority-black district was precleared, but
challenged in federal court by a Duke University Law professor. In Shaw v. Reno,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on appeal that the federal district court
had improperly dismissed the claim and that racial gerrymanders may
violate the Equal Protection Clause under some circumstances. The case
was remanded back to the district court in order to determine the case
on its merits.

On remand, the federal district court found that the
12th was drawn to serve North Carolina's compelling interest to satisfy
section 2 and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme
Court again reversed the district court, ruling that although the
Voting Rights Act is a legitimate and compelling state interest, the
drawing of the 12th was not narrowly-tailored or precisely formulated
to serve that purpose. The district court instructed the North Carolina
legislature to draw a plan, and required it to be in place in time for
the 1998 elections.

The Second Version: The new 12th
retained its elongated shape and was enacted by the North Carolina
legislature in 1997. However, a three-judge federal panel upheld a
request for a permanent injunction against using the revised 12th in
the 1998 congressional elections. The court's decision echoed the
previous Supreme Court opinion, noting that the predominant factor in
the new 12th's configuration was again, race. The North Carolina
Legislature, for the third time, created a 12th congressional district.

The Third Version: The third version of the 12th CD case
reached the Supreme Court in 1999. The court again reversed the lower
court, this time on it granting summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs in early 1998. Justice Thomas wrote that the lower court too
quickly resolved the case in the plaintiffs’ favor when the defendants
had submitted credible evidence that the second version of the 12th was
drawn using politics as the predominant factor rather than race – the
legislature had been very clear that it was seeking to protect all
incumbents. The case was remanded, where the lower court concluded
after a trial, that the second version of the 12th was an
unconstitutional racial gerrymander. North Carolina was again, ordered
to continue use of the third version of the 12th district. The Supreme
Court stayed this order on March 7, 2000, and in November 2000 reversed
the lower court.

There also were failed
challenges to North Carolina’s congressional plan based on partisan
gerrymandering. The state legislative plan was unsuccessfully
challenged as a racial gerrymander.

Legal Issues

Perhaps
the most famous Supreme Court case in redistricting hails from North
Carolina. The 12th congressional district, also known as the "I-85"
district, has been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court four times in
various configurations and once again is the subject of a federal trial
in the fall of 2000. The case can be reviewed in three parts.

Legislation/Reform Efforts

Several
bills were introduced in the North Carolina legislature that provided
for redistricting commissions, but no legislation was successful.
There also have been relatively popular, but ultimately unsuccessful
efforts to convert all multi-seat state legislative districts to
single-member districts.